Volume 10, Number 1

Science, Censorship, and Omni Magazine

To the Editor of Origins Research:

The February issue of Omni magazine contained a series of
anti-creationist articles and commentary. From beginning to end,
the 842,282 readers of Omni were presented with a distorted
caricature of special creation and creationists. This false picture
simply had to be challenged. Because I am a regular reader of
Omni, I wrote an extensive letter to the editor. I do not expect
the letter to be printed in Omni, but I do want you to
know that such bombast, disguised as science, has not gone unchallenged.

Web note: A
response to this letter was received and featured in Origins Research
10:2, along with a response by Dr. Foreman. We have included the
continuation of this dialogue in the on-line version of OR
10:2

To the Editor of Omni:

It may surprise you to know, but I am both a frequent reader
of Omni and a scientific creationist (yes, we do exist).
For several years, I have enjoyed the intellectual and open-minded
articles I found in your magazine. Your treatment of science and
technology, in particular, has been excellent. For this reason
I found your February issue of Omni especially disappointing.
Its collection of diatribes was unworthy of a publication that
prides itself in its objective quest for truth. In fact, Omni's
behavior resembled that of the proverbial politician who penciled
on the margin of his notes, "Argument weak at this point.
Thump podium and holler louder!"

You don't have the editorial space for me to rubut your every
thump and holler, but please allow me to respond with five broad
questions.

Who is Censoring Whom?

The central irony of the entire Omni issue is its premise
that a small group of religious zealots is conspiring to censor
all the science books in America. Such an accusation is absurd
when one considers the commonly understood definition of "censor":
"An official examiner of manuscripts empowered to suppress
them if objectionable" (Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk
Dictionary), By this definition, is it the creationist or
the evolutionist who has a virtual monopoly on the teaching of
origins? Is it the creationist or the evolutionist who has been
examining textbooks and has tried, through the courts, to suppress
objectionable material about origins? Is it the creationist or
the evolutionist that has to fight for equal time and academic
freedom? In short, who is the censor and who is the censored?

With misplaced indignation, several prominent writers speak
of censorship, intolerance, Stalin, book burning, and mental straight-jackets.
With manifest hypocrisy, Omni even offers to send a protest
card to the White House objecting to the censorship of science.
As in many a rape case, where victim and criminal seem to trade
places, creationists -- the true victims of censorship -- are
protrayed as censors while evolutionists are portrayed as innocent
victims. This tactic of role-reversal is as repugnant in a magazine
as it is in a court of law.

In her article, "Censoring Science", Kathleen Stein
is never quite sure what her attitude toward censorship should
be. At one point, she congratulates an anthropology professor
for discussing and "debunking" creationist literature.
She insinuates that young people should be exposed to anti-evolutionary
propaganda as a learning tool. Yet as she concludes her article,
she quotes an assistant principal as saying, "We would be
in jeopardy of confusion if we said, 'Now that we've told you
the earth is four billion years old, we're going to tell you that
it's six thousand years old'. It would be difficult for a tenth-grader
to comprehend why we're going through these two extremely different
concepts. That's not science" (p. 99).

Should young people be exposed to evidence that supports special
creation, or should they be shielded from such evidence because
it might lead to confusion? This is the issue before evolutionists,
and how they approach it is indicative of how they approach all
questions of truth.

Omni asks, "Should scientific creationsim be taught
in public schools?" Special creation is either true or false.
If it is true (or if significant evidence supports creationism),
it should be a part of the school curriculum. If it is false,
(or if it cannot be supported by scientific evidence), it should
not be taught under any guise. Evidence, and evidence alone, should
determine the place of creation in public schools. Any argument
not rooted in scientific evidence is obscurant. If this evidence
supports special creation, it deserves to be taught along side
of evolution. Omni's tirade of arguments based on ridicule,
religion, censorship, and church/state was little more than a
school of red herrings.

Does Ridicule Lead to Truth?

Omni's torrent of personal attacks was uncalled for
-- especially in Ms. Stein's feature article, "Censoring
Science". Is it really relevant that a certain preacher has
a "bulky body in a polyester maroon jacket" (p. 43)?
Or that an "old black woman" has a granddaughter who
"was murdered by a jealous lover on a white lady's lawn"
(p. 44)? Does special creation suddenly become less tenable if
fat people in polyeter or old black ladies happen to believe it?
Why does Ms. Stein waste so much ink insulting Blacks, Southerners,
Conservatives, Christians, and just about everyone else who doesn't
share her viewpoint? Can anyone really believe that such phrases
as "the brain ceases" (p. 44), "mopping up after
idiocy" (p. 94), and "pea-brained head" (p. 44),
reflect her self-affirmed virtue of broad-mindedness? Indeed,
her sympathetic portrayal of evolutionists and agnostics betrays
a self-serving attempt to promote her own circle of "educated
intellectuals" while belittling "ignorant ordinary folk".

Ms. Stein expended extraordinary effort ridiculing born-again
toys, prime-time preachers, evangelical organizations, and Christian
theme parks. But to what end? Questions of cosmogony should be
resolved by studying evidence, not by ridiculing those who do
not conform to her views.

Does Majority Opinion Decide Truth?

Most of the Omni authors seemed to imply that scientific
truth is obtainable by a show of hands. Their argument seemed
to be, "If a majority of scientists holds that evolution
is true, then, by golly, it must be true!" Omni presents
this argument against a history of science that is littered with
the corpses of theories once thought unassailable: flat-earth,
geocentric universe, phlogiston, etc. Does it really matter that
only "700 credentialed professionals" favor special
creation? Do the solicited testimonials of Stephen King, Arthur
C. Clark, Ray Bradbury, and lesser luminaries disprove special
creation? Is it really relevant that 72 recipients of the Nobel
Prize signed a document attesting to the truthfulness of evolution?

Questions of cosmogony must be argued from evidence and not
majority opinion no matter what the reputation fo those who hold
this opinion.

Should Not Cosmology Conform With Ontology?

Several Omni authors suggested that creationism is unfit
for public instruction because it affirms certain religious presuppositions.
Everyone has presuppositions, including philosophers, politicians,
preachers, and even scientists. To claim otherwise is false. We
all bring our biases, prejudices, and expectations into our interpretation
of scientific evidence. Metaphysical presuppositions undergird
all of science -- presuppositions which cannot be scientifically
verified. Why then do evolutionists object when creationist cosmogony
conforms to creationist ontology?

Dr. Gell-Mann took pains to point out that a group of creationists
adhere to a particular Christian doctrine. So what? I am sure
that Dr. Gell-Mann carries around his own share of metaphysical
baggage, even if he is unaware of it. Furthermore, it would not
surprise me if Dr.Gell-Mann's cosmology (evolution) affirms his
ontology (materialist of some sort, I suspect).

In a like manner, Bradford Smith conjectured that newly discovered
particles around the star, Beta Pictoris, might be evolving planets.
He goes on to state that "there must be an enormous amount
of life in the universe". Such statements betray his evolutionary
suppositions. Smith concludes his interview with a Spinozistic
statement of faith: "I believe there is a scientific explanation
as to how everything, including life, came into existence; how
we as an intelligent species came into being. I believe metaphysical
concepts are not required to explain it. My goal in life is to
try and seek out those answers" (p. 118).

With such presuppositions, evolution becomes not possibly
true, but necessarily true. It passes from science to faith.
Nevertheless, it is evidence that must decide scientific questions.
Whether or not an individual's view of origins conforms to a wider-held
view of the universe is immaterial.

Is Evidence for Evolution Convincing?

As I stated earlier, the case for evolution must stand or fall
on the basis of scientific evidence (and its interpretation).
The best way to accomplish this is to propose an evolution model
and a creation model, and then to see which model best explains
the facts. In Omni's entire 15 page mockery of special
creation, actual evidence was brought up only four times; and
then only to deride rather than to argue.

In "Censoring Science," Ms. Stein attacks Dr. Duane
Gish of the Insititute for Creation Research. She ruefully admits
that Gish usually wins debates, but attributes this to distortion
and trickery which plays on his audiences' ignorance. Ms. Stein
totally misses the point of Gish's whale/cow cartoon (p. 94) which
is, "If evolution is true, then the whale must have evolved
from a cow-like ancestor." Moreover, if this is the case,
then the fossil record should be replete with a myriad of transitional
forms chronicling the ungulate/whale transmutation. The Gish cartoon
was merely an imaginative (and humorous) guess at what some intermediate
forms might have looked like. The real question is, "Does
the fossil record provide evidence of ungulate/whale transitional
forms?" The honest answer is "No".

Ms. Stein also dogmatically states that "this affinity
of the blood [evidence from serology] agrees precisely with evidence
from comparative anatomy, embryology, and paleontology showing
that whales and cows descended from a common ancestor." On
this point, her evolutionary slip is showing. No one would deny
that some species share more characteristics than other species.
(Can we imagine a universe in which this would not be the case?)
It is an obvious fact that humans resemble monkeys more than they
resemble aardvarks. Likewise, one would expect human blood to
resemble monkey blood more than aardvark blood. But does this
resemblance prove common ancestry? No. Resemblance carries two
possible causes: common ancestor or common design. How one views
the supernatural will predispose how one interprets the natural.

Ms. Stein also claims that "hard empirical evidence"
for evolution is occurring under our very noses. Quoting Carleton
Gajdusek, she states that, "microbes have a generation time
of a different order of magnitude. In the lab, during one human
lifetime, the influenza virus can go through changes equivalent
to a million years of human evolution" (p. 94). Unwittingly,
Ms. Stein has confirmed one tenet of creationism: changes occur
only within the fixed limits of kinds. The much-watched influenza
virus, for all its changes, remains just an influenza virus. It
has demonstrated no urge to climb the evolutionary ladder toward
some higher life form.

Further, Ms. Stein denies the creationist contention that mathematical
probability militates against evolution. She incorrectly attributes
the following quote to Dr. Gish: Amino acids "are as apt
to form themselves into chains having the right sequences, as
a tornado swirling through a junk yard can form spontaneously
into a Boeing 747" (p. 94). Actually, the junk yard analogy
belongs to a famed astronomer, Fred Hoyle ("Hoyle on Evolution",
Nature, vol 294, November 12, 1981, p. 105). In contradiction
to the professsional wisdom of most mathematicians and geneticists,
she dogmatically asserts, "mathematical odds, in short, have
nothing to do with the origins of life" (p. 94). With apologies
to Descartes, her logic seems to run, "I exist, therefore
I evolved."

It is a peculiar characteristic of many modern scientists that,
in their limited area of recognized expertise, they tend to be
critical of evolution, while in areas outside their expertise
they uncritically accept it. Two cases come to mind: Francis Crick
buys into nine-tenths of the evolutionary scenario. He believes
that the universe and living organisms are evolving. Notwithstanding,
in his own area of Nobel-Prize winning expertise, he believes
that the standard evolutionary scenario is impossible. Francis
Crick is so convinced that life on this planet could not have
some from non-life that he has proposed a theory of "directed
panspermia" whereby the first seeds of life came from outer
space. Conversely, Stephen Jay Gould has no trouble believing
that life evolved from non-life and that the entire universe is
evolving. Nevertheless, in his area of paleontological expertise,
he finds orthodox, gradualistic evolution impossible. Recognizing
that the overwhelming majority of fossil forms are characterized
by sudden appearance and stasis, Gould has opted for a theory
of "punctuated equilibria" or "hopeful monsters".
Compelled by the evidence, Gould has postulated that evolving
species take unexpected and unexplainable leaps up the evolutionary
ladder.

In conclusion, I relaize that there is no chance of this letter
finding its way into your publication. Indeed, the odds of this
letter appearing in Omni are probably no better than those
estimated for the spontaneous generation of complex proteins.
Yet, in its own way, my letter's non-appearance will speak volumes
about Omni's true attitude toward censorship and bigotry
-- and do so with an eloquence words could never achieve.

Editor's note: As this issue goes to press,
Dr. Foreman has received no reply from Omni, and no portion
of his letter has been printed.